…”When Cruz was my constitutional law student at Harvard, he aced the course after making a big point of opposing my views in class — arguing stridently for sticking with the “original meaning” against the idea of a more elastic “living Constitution” whenever such ideas came up. I enjoyed jousting with him, but Ted never convinced me — nor did I convince him.

At least he was consistent in those days. Now, he seems to be a fair weather originalist, abandoning that method’s narrow constraints when it suits his ambition”… ~ Laurence H Tribe (Harvard)

Ted Cruz is a Naturalized Citizen, not “Natural Born”

(Via Free Republic) The question of who qualifies as a “natural born citizen” may be close in some cases, but the case of Ted Cruz is easy. Constitutionally speaking, Cruz is a naturalized citizen, not “natural born.”

Regarding citizenship, the Constitution grants Congress power over a uniform rule of naturalization, not over citizenship generally. Any citizen whose citizenship is derived from an act of Congress is thus a naturalized citizen, constitutionally speaking, and thus not “natural born.”

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution . . . contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. . . . Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization.

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

(Emphasis added.) That this principle still holds was recognized in Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)— implicitly in the majority opinion of Blackmun, in which Chief Justice Burger, and Justices Harlan, Stewart, and White joined:

[O]ur law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute [and] the [Supreme] Court has specifically recognized the power of Congress not to grant a United States citizen the right to transmit citizenship by descent.

(pp. 828-30) and explicitly in the dissent of Brennan, joined by Douglas:

Concededly, petitioner [Bellei] was a citizen at birth, not by constitutional right, but only through operation of a federal statute. In the light of the complete lack of rational basis for distinguishing among citizens whose naturalization was carried out within the physical bounds of the United States, and those, like Bellei, who may be naturalized overseas . . . .

(p. 845, emphasis added) as well as in the dissent of Black, with Douglass and Marshall joining:

Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, Â§ 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.

(p. 840, Emphasis added).

The argument that Cruz is “natural born” because he was never naturalized is based on the false premise that Cruz was never naturalized.

Cruz was naturalized (presumably at birth) by statute under Congress’ power to make a uniform rule of naturalization. And since he (apparently) has no other claim to U.S. citizenship, he cannot be considered a “natural born” citizen. (link)

940 Responses to Senator Ted Cruz Was For The Constitution, Before He Turned Against It…

“..suggesting that Democrats are the ones prompting Trump to question Cruz’s citizenship.

“I will say it is more than a little strange to see Donald relying on as authoritative a liberal, left-wing, judicial activist Harvard law professor who is a huge Hillary supporter,” Cruz said to reporters in New Hampshire following a campaign rally, apparently referencing Harvard Law professor Lawrence Tribe’s legal analysis. “It starts to make you think, ‘Gosh, why are some of Hillary’s strongest supporters backing Donald Trump?’”

Cruz reportedly also suggested that Democrats are trying to prop up a Republican candidate – such as Trump – that they think they can defeat in the general election.”

He’s freaking out like Levin out of fear of finally being exposed.
Anyway — note that Trump warned Cruz about this a few months before he even announced his running back in March and I’m sure he knew about that too:

I disagreed with nearly all of my liberal professors, it didn’t prevent me from taking them because if you only took consevative professors you would never finish the first year of college, much less law school.

What people need to see is that libturds, like this professor, will only tell the truth when it suits their agenda. Libturds will do anything to take down Cruz because he is on the right. Sadly, this is one of those times that a libturd professor is telling the truth. Now if you were to ask that same moron professor about Ovomit’s eligibility, he would contradict nearly everything he said about Cruz. Stop listening to what they are saying, but read what they provide as proof.

I think that Democrat challengers of his eligibility would let him win his case, because that will be a big victory for the living document interpretation that they use to undermine and “modernize” the Constitution. That’s the prize they are really after, and it would not be a happy day for Constitutional originalists who want to preserve things like the Second Amendment. How ironic it would be that a so-called originalist would be opening the door wider to living document interpretations.

“Obama” was indeed born in Kenya, and that Trump forced him to publish a fake “birth certificate” to “prove” otherwise is evidence enough that everyone knew, only four years ago, that you have to be born in the United States in order to be President.

Actually not, but if you learn your Constitution through message boards, then you are apt to believe anything. While I’m no birther on Obama (and I would’ve loved it if he were ineligible), the law on citizenship required the birth mother to have been born in the us and have resided in the US for at least 5 years after the age of 14. Obama’s mother was 18, so she could not meet this requirement. Therefore, location of birth became important.

Again, you still do not even understand the reason that Ovomit is ineligible. It has nothing to do with citizenship, it has to do with what TYPE of citizenship he falls under, and that is Natural Born Citizen – “a person born in the county to BOTH citizen parents”! Ovomit’s father was not a citizen, and his mother did NOT meet the requirements to confer citizenship to him either. So he definitely doesn’t meet the natural born citizen requirement and likely doesn’t meet the basic citizenship requirement! And considering that his birth certificate is a fraud, he most likely was NOT born on US soil which means he definitely is NOT a citizen. Only a fool can look at the facts and not understand the truth!

Right Scoop has professional thugs doing the same, especially stage9, NYGino, TheresaAK, Conservative220, et al. Attack dogs whenever you try to engage against Ted Cruz. I only commented that he was a natural born Cuban citizen.

Born in Calgary, Cruz cannot be a “natural-born Cuban”.
He could be a natural-born Canadian if BOTH his parents had been naturalized at the time of his birth.
Anyway, if he ran for Prime Minister, that would be a definite improvement upon the calamitous Justin Trudeau.

We know that Cruz is a citizen by virtue of his mothers citizenship and a statue in our Naturalization laws. I know that Cruz did not have to apply for naturalization because his mother did it on his behalf at the US consulate. She took his Canadian birth certificate, her documents proving US citizenship, filled out the relevant forms, and submitted them for review and approval. Once it is determined that certain statutory requirements are met, then a CRBA would be issued for Cruz.

We know that the original intent of Article 2 was to exclude foreign born persons, naturalized or not, from being able to serve as Commander in Chief. We know there has been no law passed which amends the requirement to be a natural born Citizen, which is not exactly a flexible term.

The pissing match is whether current naturalization law is going to supersede the original intent of Article 2. without amending the Constitution.
In answer to a cruz supporter who is chasing itself in a circle. Here was the reply he/she sent:

“Other than the establishing the requirement for NBC, Article II is IRRELEVANT to the discussion of NBC.

Article I Section 8 is the relevant portion of the Constitution as is specifically enumerates Congress with the authority over the rules of naturalization – who does and who does not need to be naturalized. A person born as a US Citizen at the time of their birth is a natural born citizen.”

Yes, this is the stupidity. I bet this individual votes for Bernie if cruz drops out.

Hahaha- OK! I am going based solely on cruz’s word here. I think the CRBA would be a good thing to get a look at as it seems peculiar to me that he would release his Canadian birth certificate but NOT his naturalization document? His campaign claimed to the Dallas newspaper that Mother Ted Cruz applied at the consulate. I don’t know if Ted himself has ever said that she did. I don’t know if Mother ever said that she did. ANd it is completely bizarre to me that a man planning to run for US president doesn’t have the Fing sense to – at the very LEAST – renounce his Canadian citizenship. Not that doing so would make him qualified, but he would look less like a complete clueless dope.

BTW, I am a birther from waaayyyy back. Actually, I am an “originalist”. In my humble research I have never found any support for the theory that a naturalization law passed by Congress impacts in any way Art. 2, and certainly none amend it.

Could it be because it might allow him to be POTUS? DUHHHHHHH! It amazes me that individuals like you, think that a “conservative” politician couldn’t have a hidden agenda. ALL of those running have an agenda, the best candidates have already dropped out or refused to run, like Trey Gowdy. The US Presidency has become just another “reality show”, and the candidates that stay in the game are the Kardashians, Snookies, Sharptongues, and Farrakhans – Sanders (the known socialist), Hitlery (the known criminal, lying, treasonous murderer), Cruz (the known ineligible, the conservative Obama), Trump (the known loud-mouthed, obnoxious, flip-flopping elitist). Everyone of them brings controversy to the “show”, and Americans are suckering for it, especially considering that the elitists in charge already KNOW who will be POTUS, they have known the outcome of every election since LBJ!

Some of the withheld information may be to protect his parents. Somewhere in the history of Cruz Senior is a failed first marriage and a divorce. He had two children in the first marriage. Did he meet Eleanor at work and run off with her to Canada? When did Cruz Senior and Eleanor marry? Who was the first wife?

Cruz likes to tell the story of his dad leaving him and his mom, and then finding Christ, and returning home. But that’s not where the story ends. Rafael Sr. left Eleanor again, and got married to someone else.

I would never hold the actions of someone’s parents against them, but I do not appreciate the whitewashing of his real personal story. Be authentic. Tell it like it is. Tell it all. Trump’s “I’m no angel, but I’ll do right by the American people” is far more honest than trying to convince me that you are an angel.

Agreed Parteagirl:
We’ll be surprised at the non-angels in heaven and angels in hell. Remember the Pharisees were angels until Jesus set them straight. Jesus only determines a person’s true heart on our Judgement day. Always lead an upright and honest life — stumbles allowed when repented.

Later thoughts – If that is true, then Cruz Senior and Eleanor there is a possibility that they were not married when Cruz was born. OR Cruz Senior’s second marriage was bigamy. There was also 1997 divorce between Rafael and Eleanor listed on Wikipedia.
Sounds like a turbulent family.

I’ve never thought of that! If Sr. was either not properly divorced, or he and Eleanor were not married when Ted was born, that could explain why the records are still sealed. If you find out anything more, please keep me posted. Good catch, Georgia!

That’s not what the form looked like when Ted Cruz was born because he is only a few years older than my son who was born in Germany. The form is called “American Citizen Born Abroad” which is probably the reason none of you want to show it. It infers that he was ALREADY an American citizen WHEN he was born. Sorry to disappoint all of you.

“A person born as a US Citizen at the time of their birth” is NOT necessarily
“a natural born citizen.”

“A person born as a US Citizen at the time of their birth” can be automatically naturalized by statute, which would be the case of Cruz if his parents filled in the relevant forms in due time.
The distinction between “born a citizen” and “natural-born” is crucial in the history of the natural-born citizen clause:
The Framers actually REPLACED the clause “born a citizen” by “natural-born citizen” in the draft Constitution.

“… Hamilton’s proposed principles for a Constitution and a presidential citizenship eligibility requirement therein requiring that a Citizen simply had to be ‘born a Citizen’ of the USA, i.e., a Citizen by Birth.
“… But that citizenship status for who could be President was rejected by the framers as insufficient. Instead of allowing any person ‘born a citizen’ to be President and Commander of the military, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement recommended by John Jay via George Washington, i.e., requiring the Citizen to be a ‘natural born Citizen’, to block any chance of the person with foreign influence or allegiances or claims on their allegiance at birth from becoming President and Commander of the Military.

“… A natural born Citizen needs no man-made law to bestow Citizenship on them. The added adjective ‘natural’ comes from Natural Law which is recognized the world over as universal law and which is the foundation of the ‘Law of Nations’ which was codified by Vattel in 1758 in his preeminent legal treatise used by the founders, ‘The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law’.

“In Vol.1 Chapter 19 of Vattel’s ‘Law of Nations’ [‘Le Droit des gens’], the “Des citoyens et naturels“, Vattel in Section 212 explains to us (the French term “naturels” was translated to English in 1781 in the ‘Journal of the Continental Congress’ and in the 1797 English edition of Vattel), to tell us that the ‘natural born Citizens’ are
those born in the country to parents (plural) who are Citizens of the country when their child is born.

“… Such a person, a natural born Citizen, is born with unity of Citizenship and sole allegiance at birth due to having been both born on the soil AND being born to two Citizen parents.
“The person who would be President must be a second generation American with no foreign claims of allegiance on them at birth under the law of nations and natural law, the child of two Citizens and born in the USA…”

The judicial construction of statutory or constitutional language is more art than science. See, for example, the statutory construction of the phrase “established by the state” in King v Burwell decision.

The courts would have no trouble with “natural born citizen.” But, because of a pesky doctrine called “standing,” the dispute will never be decided by the courts. That is, unless a state official is persuaded to keep Cruz off the ballot. In that case Cruz himself might have standing to sue.

But even then the case would become moot unless Cruz gets the nomination and wins.

Regardless of it all, it is time for this issue to go to the courts and be made clear. I would like it to be ruled as both parents must be Americans by birth w/in the 50 U.S. States, and the kid has to be born on American soil w/in the 50 U.S. States, unless it is born overseas due to a military deployment. Cut, dry, end of story.

Unfortunately our courts are now hyper-politicized, and will make a decision based on politics, not truth.
I’ve looked into this over the last few days, and the truthful answer is “we will not know what the framers had in mind”. They wanted a barrier to foreign politicos moving to the States and taking over, but their usage of the term “Natural Born Citizen” was a poor choice in wording.
Your opinion of what you would like – may even be what the framers intended, but they left very little to go on. If we skip the “natural born” part, and just trim to “born a citizen” – I think we get >90% of what they wanted/intended. At the time the English were pushing more in the direction of blood lines vs Soil (location).
While writing the Constitutional framework, Hamilton wrote in his outline: “Article IX, section 1 of the sketch provided: ‘No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.’ Hamilton’s draft, which appears to be an early version of the natural-born citizen clause, contains two distinct ideas: first, that those currently citizens will not be excluded from presidential eligibility, and second, that the President must be born a citizen – and nothing concerning “natural” or “location”.
But one could turn around and argue that the inclusion of “Natural born” in the changes to the Hamilton concept were specifically to include a location based requirement. So – one can go around and around.
On balance, based on the sum of comments, typical English law and tradition of the time, contemporaneous other laws in Congress, etc it seems the proper interpretation is “Born a citizen”. It is much easier arguing this side, than trying to argue the opposite – that location was a critical qualifier. The “NB Citizen” may be poorly defined, but it is really hard to find it defined for an Englishman in 1790 as “based on geography”. This would be counter to contemporaneous trends. Possible, and can’t be demonstrated wrong – just a much harder point to make.
You might note – suddenly Sundance is a friend of Laurence Tribe. Maybe we should ask Sundance what else of Tribe’s he agrees with? etc.

Much easier, eh? A few days, eh? How about you spend seven years and hundreds of hours and then come back with your theory of “easier”. The hard core after-birth obots won’t touch this issue. They spent years swearing that obama was eligible no matter WHO his parents were BECAUSE he was born in HI. Nothing but that was needed, they swore.

I was on topic. For seven years and well over 500 hours of research I have been on topic. Where have you been with your “just trim to “born a citizen” – I think we get >90% of what they wanted/intended”, which has precisely zero in common with the original intent. I promote and support ONLY the original intent. It isn’t just because I respect our founders, it’s because I see the profound danger in supporting anything else.

“… Hamilton’s proposed requirement… that a Citizen simply had to be ‘born a Citizen’ of the USA, i.e., a Citizen by Birth… was REJECTED by the framers as insufficient.

“They chose to adopt the more stringent requirement recommended [by] John Jay to George Washington, i.e., requiring the Citizen to be a ‘natural born Citizen’, to block any chance of the person with foreign influence or allegiances or claims on their allegiance at birth from becoming President and Commander of the Military.

“… A natural born Citizen needs no man-made law to bestow Citizenship on them.
The added adjective ‘natural’ comes from Natural Law which is recognized the world over as universal law and which is the foundation of the ‘Law of Nations’ which was codified by Vattel in 1758 in his preeminent legal treatise used by the founders, ‘The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law’.

“In Vol.1 Chapter 19 of Vattel’s ‘Law of Nations’ [‘Le Droit des gens’], the “Des citoyens et naturels“, Vattel in Section 212 explains to us (the French term “naturels” was translated to English in 1781 in the ‘Journal of the Continental Congress’ and in the 1797 English edition of Vattel), to tell us that the ‘natural born Citizens’ are
those born in the country to parents (plural) who are Citizens of the country when their child is born.

“… Such a person, a natural born Citizen, is born with unity of Citizenship and sole allegiance at birth due to having been both born on the soil AND being born to two Citizen parents.
“The person who would be President must be a second generation American with no foreign claims of allegiance on them at birth under the law of nations and natural law, the child of two Citizens and born in the USA…”

I understand that you can quote sources to support one side of the argument.
Others can quote other sources to present the opposite side of the argument.
I’m not sure if the comment you are replying to is one in which I mentioned that the change from Hamilton’s suggestion was exactly as you claim – evidence that they wanted the requirement to be more stringent. That may be so. but it may also not be so. The quote you present – is someone’s OPINION of what they meant- and I’ll bet you $1 it is not an opinion written in 1790. There is no typical “back and forth” on this topic in the tradition of Federalist papers or other sources.
It is an odd bit of the Constitution, in which there is actually little contemporaneous discussion of their meaning.
Jay does not define his terms, and there is little to support a solid definition at the time. (This is why we see constant references to Vattel – as if everyone had it memorized, even when the phrase was not even used in the version of Vattell in print at the time (?!))
Jay could easily have meant “born a citizen” – as a “natural citizen”. he uses the phrase – but there is nothing to indicate his definition.
Relying on Vattel, however accurate, is usually an indication that one is attempting to prove one side against the other. Similarly – you omit any confusing or contradictory sources.
it is a strange piece of history, but presenting one side of a case is not a “win” – it is just one side of a case.
I have no axe to grind here, and no goal/win or lose position. i understand that a reasonable case can be made that NBC included geography. But similarly a case can be made that it does not.
One thing I look for here is – these guys had many discussions about many topics. If we accept that NBC includes geography, what I don’t see are any discussions re American soldiers serving overseas, politicians or merchants serving overseas, or people born in the territories or outside the official States of the US. And given that the class of guys doing the work here were the military, political, and merchant class, they would be well aware of these issues. They passed this – and no one asked “what about my nephew in Kentucky?” Or “my cousin in England”? No one asked “how can I get any good officers?” Or what about someone born in the “Republic of Vermont” (not a state in 1787)? They are smart guys – they would have seen that right away. I’m not claiming that proves a side – because this one is just not a certainty type argument. But the lack of discussion or clarification about what would have been critical issues if they meant to include geography makes me think they didn’t. Or they were just tired, and moved past it. The lack of discussion of the meaning and ramifications of a geographical (and temporal) requirement tends to make me think they just meant “born a citizen”. But that is just my opinion.

Did you know he used to like to write the little poems for greeting cards? Like Hallmark cards? In his ancestral home (a massive and beautiful palace) there are some attached to a wall along a corridor. It really endeared him to me.

Interestingly, Laura Ingraham, when she was on Hannity’s show the night of January 6 with Charles Hurt and Geraldo, actually used the word “naturalized” to describe Cruz’s citizenship–and she was arguing FOR him. She said it very softly, as if she was trying to slip it in without anyone noticing that she hadn’t said “natural born”.

“From June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008, there had been eight (8) different congressional attempts to alter Article II – Section I – Clause V – natural born citizen requirements for president in the U.S. Constitution, all of them failing in committee — All of it taking placing during Barack Obama’s rise to political power and preceding the November 2008 presidential election.

It (the attempts to amend) actually began back in 1970 I believe. I think Father Rommeny was the first test of ineligible candidate, and the issue did come forward. Now it’s not so easy to find anything on the searches regarding George Rommney and his mexican problem though . The searches all bring up results that GEORGE ROMMNEY WAS ELIGIBLE !! It’s been some time since I looked through all those records, I am not sure I kept links to all of it.

This is for Vincentjappi – I’m not sure why the screen says “reply to Pinkie”
Not trying to be argumentative, but rather to educate myself, I have some questions here. I reviewed the Venus case, and it is correct, Vattel is quoted. But the case does not concern the question of NBC, it concerns the rights of citizens in the case of the Venus, and definitions of domicile. Vattel is quoted – but when I read the case I don’t see any reference to solving a question re NBC. The NBC portion of the quote just happens to be within the section quoted relative to a question that is COMPLETELY – as in in its entirety – about a different subject. it indicates Marshall is aware of Vattel, and considers Law of Nations to be instructive – but it is not (and not even close) to an NBC type question under discussion.
Is there a different reading of this? I am not familiar with the case. I will try to read the others as time allows – but these are tough reads. When I read the Venus case, I see no bearing or interest in NBC at all, just the occurence that the portion of Vattel quoted just happens to include the portion in which he describes NBC.

Somewhat interestingly – reading the remainder of the case has some bearing on other current events; it seems that foreign nationals residing in the US should be given a reasonable amount of time to return to their home country, or to be considered “enemies, although enemies disarmed”. Would be fun to bring ALL of these old school defintions to the fore in modern discussions.

Rattlerjake –
I realize that we can provide links to other peoples’ opinions. At this point in my investigation I have researched the question more broadly than the author of the linked article. The article is a “position paper” or essay – he wishes to present a case for one interpretation, and goes forward to present that case.
He quotes things like Vattel, using the 1797 translation of the work to quote NBC, when the 1758 translation which would have been in use during the writing of the Constitution did not have the same translation – in fact did not have the NBC phrase at all.
He quotes this similar list of Supreme Court cases – which when investigated don’t seem to have jack-all to do with NBC, they just happen to be cases in which Vattel or NBC was quoted.
The fact is – articles such as the one you linked seem to be the BEST the proponents of the geographic NBC can do, and when investigated some of the strongest points just disolve (like the Vattel 1758 – 1797 reference.) People who are SERIOUS about actually understanding the problem, not proving a point or making a case, would not be quoting translations that existed in the future, or cases like The Venus. Said differently, this article is a good summary of the best case that can be made, and many of the references are really not that strong; the best case that can be made, is weak, and does not stand up well to criticism or critical thinking. Just as similarly no strong case for NBC NOT having a geographic requirement in 1787 can be made.
I suggest you go and read those Supreme Court cases for yourself. If you can explain to me how they relate to the definition of NBC I would be very happy to hear it.
This is a very odd question, and somehow – possibly through luck, we avoided being hung up on it in the past. Presidents Grant and Hayes make it in from Ohio by about ten years (or possibly this discussion would have been back then “is a territory part of the United States ….”. The way it worked out we had few Presidents from the West.

Quick review also finds problems with Shanks and Wong Kim Ark cases – these are not NBC cases.
This seems to be a list of cases which have quoted or referenced Vattel, but have very limited or zero interest in the NBC question.
And good luck untangling the knot of Shanks vs Dupont – that one is wild.
Please correct me if I am wrong – in exactly what way do these cases have bearing on the Supreme Court’s understanding and interpretation of the NBC statement in the Constitution?

Bellei (and Wong Kim Ark) are not about NBC, but about the status of those who are foreign-born “citizens at birth” by virtue of their birth to citizen parent(s). Their status is “naturalized, constitutionally speaking.”

This is my understanding. Wong Kim Ark is a 14th amendment case. I see these lists of cases presented as if the SCOTUS has taken up this question previously, and every time I dig in – I find that the cases are not NBC cases, or NBC has near zero impact on the case. If anything some of the arguments presented in Wong Kim Ark lead to a broad interpretation of NBC, not the narrow “blood + geography” requirement.
Wong Kim Ark is NOT found to be “naturalized”. He is found to be a citizen at birth. No secondary process occurs or is required. He is a citizen by his nature – “All person born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” – Born OR naturalized. WK Ark did not need a secondary naturalization process. (one might be able to make the case that this establishes there are other ways to become a “natural born citizen” than “blood + geography”) – he was a citizen at birth by his nature.
The Cruz case is amazingly right down the line.
Under the narrow interpretation, if James Madison had a daughter, and she married an Englishman, and they had a child in the middle of Washington DC – that child could not be President. Maybe they meant that? But ? …

Thank you – that is the closest to correct reference. but even within – the court writes this:

“In any event, although one might have expected a definition of citizenship in constitutional terms, none was embraced in the original document, or, indeed, in any of the amendments adopted prior to the War Between the States.

Apart from the passing reference to the “natural born Citizen” in the Constitution’s Art. II, § 1, cl. 5, we have, in the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, 14 Stat. 27, the first statutory recognition and concomitant formal definition of the citizenship status of the native born:”

Even in Bellei the court references the NBC as a “passing reference”.

It appears the logic of the court was that citizenship was NOT Constitutionally defined, until 14th amendment, and as such, Congress could self regulate, and give and take as they saw fit.
So – although the case of Bellei seems to say that Cruz would not be a citizen (until 1978 when the law was changed, and now he would be) – the logic of the case is that the qualifications of citizenship were not defined by the Constitution (that the NBC was a ‘passing reference”) and thus was under the control of Congress’ later actions.
And this is sort of true – the NBC requirement in the Constitution is specific to the office of president, and would have no impact on Bellei, as he was not running for President. The NBC referenced in the Constitution actually has no bearing on Bellei – it does not apply to his case.
So reading the logic of what Bellei actually says – Congress would be free to pass any definition of NBC or citizenship they wish. The court in Bellei does not seek to define NBC under Constitution – it ignores it, and vests citizenship power in later actions of Congress. (Because Bellei is not specifically covered by the 14th amendment.) Bellei finds that Congress can regulate itself, so far as it does not violate 14th amendment. (Constitutional NBC does not apply to Bellei, because he is not running for President.)
The case seems strange in this application, for on one hand it seems to say a person such as Bellei can lose his citizenship, yet at the same time hold that Congress is free to fluidly define citizenship so long as they do not explicitly break 14th amendment.
It seems close due to similarity, but when analyzed Bellei has little to do with NBC in Constitution Art 2, because Bellei was not running for President. The case is perfectly close, and yet – completely not appropriate. Viewed one way – a perfect example; viewed differently, completely not related to Article 2 at all.

But Bellei was a person born, in Italy, of an Italian citizen father and a US citizen mother. Bellei was a US citizen at birth under the federal law in force at the time. So the Bellei Court was dealing with the citizenship rights of someone like Cruz. But there were, at that time some, requirements for Bellei to follow later, in order to keep or confirm his US citizenship–requirements which Bellei did not follow. (I don’t know what, if any, requirements Cruz or his parents may have had to follow under the law at that (later) time.)

Bellei was basically arguing that it was unconstitutional for the federal law to take away his citizenship after it had been granted to him at birth, because of the protections built in to the 14th amendment.

To decide the case, the Court had to decide what type of citizenship rights Bellei got at birth, and how those fit into the protections in the 14th Amendment.

All of the justices agreed that Bellei was, constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen, naturalized at his birth by operation of federal law. The majority ruled that Bellei’s naturalization happened, effectively, in Italy, not in the US, and was thus not protected by the14th amendment protection. The dissent argued that Bellei should be considered as “naturalize in the United States” so that he would be entitled to 14th Amendment protection.

So Bellei does not rule on the definition of “natural born.” But what Bellei does do is classify all persons in Cruz’ situation–all persons born a citizen solely by virtue of a law passed by Congress–as “naturalized” citizens under the Constitution.

And ‘naturalized’ and ‘natural born’ are basically exclusive of each other–one person cannot be both–whatever else ‘natural born’ may be.

I’m not so sure.
This is what i see – that the court ruled that since Bellei was not a 14th amendment citizen, that his citizenship was based on congressional laws, and that “what Congress gave they could take away”. The SCOTUS treated the NBC portion of the Constitution as restricted to only the POTUS; once they did that, bellei had ONLY the 14th amendment to defend him. Once that barrier was broken, he was open to the whim of congress.
Bellei was naturalized by federal law at birth – that is true. but that is because there is no other law under which he could gain citizenship. In fact the same is true for you or I – there is NO definition of Citizenship in the Constitution pre 14th amendment.
This is probably why we see the flurry of activity (1790, 1797) re citizenship.
The complete lack of attention to citizenship in the Constitution, and the subsequent Congressional actions to define it, imply that the founders thought this was not a Constitutional issue.
There are no “two classes of citizenship” (at least pre-14th amendment.) There is only one. “Those granted citizenship by action of Congress”. there is no citizenship in the Constitution.
The similarity of Bellei to Cruz is tempting – but the two classes of citizenship defined by Bellei are “14th amendment” and “Congressional”.
To repeat it in your style – Bellei shows that there are two types “14th amendment” and “Congressional”. It says that since Bellei was not 14th amendment, he must be Congressional, and thus “naturalized”. But it says absolutely zero about “natural born”. If we assume that the founders meant NBC to include people like Bellei – it would make NO DIFFERENCE to his case. Because there is no Constitutional grant of citizenship based on that definition of NBC, and there is no 14th amendment statement re that type of NBC. He could be the most NBC person in the world – if it isn’t in the 14th amendment, the control of what a citizen is falls to legislation. They were judging “who has legal control of the definition of citizenship”.

Bellei also confirms the rule in US law “that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.”

In other words, without any law passed by Congress, or in the absence of any law passed by Congress, the place of birth governs. In other words, you do not need a law to define citizenship, says Bellei and the sources it quotes–citizenship just follows place of birth (with some exceptions not relevant to Bellei and not mentioned there, such as children of Ambassadors to the US born here are not US citizens, and children of invaders likewise are not).

By definition, Ted Cruz is natural born. There is no provision defined in the constitution for “Natural Born.” As a natural citizen “at birth” and by definition children born to US Citizens traveling abroad, Ted Cruz, does indeed meet the qualification to be elected to the office of President of The United States.